Context
The FCA has published its response to the Complaints Commissioner’s report in relation to Amyma Limited, sympathising with those who lost money in investments promoted by Amyma. The FCA includes its usual response that it has carefully considered the Complaints Commissioner’s findings.
Key points to note and next actions
In summary, the FCA:
- Does not agree with the Commissioner’s findings about its actions in relation to Amyma in 2017 (Element One).
The FCA disagrees with the Commissioner’s finding that it acted unreasonably in closing its 2017 enquiry into Amyma. It says it stepped back to avoid interfering with another agency’s investigation, had limited reports about wider misconduct, and had to prioritise resources given over 13,000 reports were received in that year. It maintains its decision was reasonable. - Does agree in some respects with the Commissioner’s findings about the FCA’s handling of the Approved Persons applications connected to Amyma’s appointment as an Appointed Representative (AR) (Element Two) in 2018.
The FCA says it should have reviewed Amyma’s Approved Persons applications more closely, but it could not block the Principal firm from appointing Amyma as an AR. Oversight of the AR was the Principal’s responsibility, and FCA follow‑up did not lead to termination. - The FCA agrees with the Commissioner’s findings in relation to compensation (Element Three), which the Commissioner did not uphold.
Consumers harmed by an Appointed Representative should complain to the Principal firm, and if unhappy with the outcome, they can escalate to FOS or the FSCS.
The FCA is strengthening the AR regime due to consumer harm caused by poor oversight from Principal firms. This includes supporting HM Treasury’s 2026 reform proposals, the introduction of stricter rules in 2022 to improve Principals’ oversight and data reporting, and reviewing AR notifications alongside Approved Persons applications to better target higher‑risk firms.